Reading Kim Weatherall’s analysis of the judgement against Kazaa in Australia (it’s liable for authorising copyright infringement, with the parties directed to implement a filtering protocol) reminds me of the important differences between the American legal system and Australian and other common law countries.

Most important, the common law tradition tends to be far more closely attuned to the nuances of precedent, and to fact-based distinctions between holding and dicta, than the modern American tradition is. We certainly teach American lawyers to discern those distinctions, but it’s rare to see a dispute analyzed exclusively on the basis of distinctions drawn from cases. We’ve nearly abandoned the notion that this sort of analysis is the only thing that judges should pursue, and that extraneous judicial statements should be disregarded as “obiter.” To an American lawyer, that word itself is a quaint anachronism; note what appears to be Kim’s un-selfconscious usage. On the other side of the divide, the American lawyer and judge tends to be far more comfortable deploying policy arguments for and against a given result, even at the trial level, than their common law counterparts. Judges routinely cloak their analysis of precedent in policy justifications. And all of this holds true, I think, even in a context like copyright, which is statutory in Australia just as it is in the United States.

In addition, these differences in judicial humility extend, ordinarily, to the two systems’ relative comfort levels in “supervising” ongoing remedies. Kim points out “the traditional reluctance of the courts to grant injunctive relief that will involve forcing parties into an ongoing relationship, which will require ‘ongoing supervision’ by the court of the order.” In the U.S., despite formal statements in the law to similar effect, courts supervise all kinds of things — from desegregation orders to reconstruction of negligently-built condominium developments to the behavior of monopolistic software producers. Judicial supervision of technological design is relatively new here, but that’s largely because cases alleging that designs inflicted economic harm are also relatively new, and relatively rare.

So when Kim concludes

But most immediately striking to me is just how brave Wilcox is. In splitting the baby, and trying to get into technological design, I fear that the judge has let himself in for a helluva fight. And it’s not like he didn’t know that: he saw the litigation as it went on. I fear the dramas will continue as parties fight over orders. We are back in Napster territory again.

I can’t doubt her analysis of Australian law. But I do wonder whether the comparison is apt. Her characterization of the Australian judgement make it sound as if the judge is embarking on a new venture, not just in IP but in Australian law more generally. Judge Patel’s appointment of A.J. Nichols as a technical expert was widely criticized (by Napster, and by fellow technology firms) because it appeared to put “innovation” and technical design in the hands of a third party. But appointing technical experts and special masters to help with ongoing supervision and implementation of remedies is something that American courts do all the time. (Nowhere is that phenomenon better established, I suspect, than in the courts of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, where I used to practice — that is, in the Silicon Valley and its environs.) So while the Kazaa judgement may represent an extraordinary procedural step for an Australian court, from an the point of view of the American judicial system I think that the right (objective) response is that the judge’s ruling in this regard is No-Big-Deal.

5 thoughts on “Aussie P2P

  1. Emmanuel

    Unfortunately the wrong generation is handling all the cases surrounding digital media copyright laws and things like napster and kazaa. We’re the ones coming up with the stuff do the legislatures really think they can keep up with a whole generation of computer literate people when they saw their first computers at the age of 30? Hehe we don’t use vacuum tubes and punch cards anymore. I once heard a professor call the books in the law library “law relics” and to speak metaphorically that is exactly what the various legislatures around the world seem to be working on while our generation is working on law databases contained online. They’re all out of the times. You have these giants huge media giants like Sony or WB and computer (software/hardware) companies like Microsoft and they’re all fighting the digital “piracy” like it’s the last plague (at least Microsoft should know better). What the governments don’t seem to understand given that they have neither computer science nor mathematical backgrounds or apparently the common sense to create analogies is that it will not stop. However instead of taking advantage of the information superhighway and building more crossroads and intersections they wish to place roadblocks and tollbooths. Of course governments and huge companies don’t have the speed or precision necessary to stop the Richard Stallmans or the Linus Torvalds that actually work on creating these highways. Programmers and mathematicians are built for creativity something the governments of now with their ancient members and their conglomerate structures simply don’t have the aptitude for. What is Microsoft going to do when GNU surpasses Windows or Longhorn (I think this is the new name for it)? Getting on topic, so Australia’s against kazaa now, I wonder if Australia is even aware of the fact that no one even uses it anymore. The programmers are already ahead of them they’re ahead of all of them.
    The philosophical war going on behind the scenes is very clear. I understand what artists and the other programmers (who could appropriately be called artists) want and it is fair, it’s to be expected. However if there’s anything that I’ve picked up out of law school so far is that “it’s fair” isn’t a good argument and courts want practicality. Are we really going to sue hundreds of people at a time, everyday for every piece of pirated material on their hard drive? Speaking of tied up courts… this approach won’t go far. The legislatures need to start talking to the math and comp sci guys, they need to really get into the material to find an innovative and practical way of dealing with illegal pirating or maybe (heaven forbid) even accept that it will happen and take advantage of it.

  2. […] Más gente comentando acerca de esto: Washington Post, Barrapunto, Error500, madisonian, SVmediaLaw, Furdlog, CoCo, Corante, BoingBoing, BoinBoing2, News.Com, NewsYahoo, etc. […]

  3. […] Earlier this week an Australian court ordered Sharman Networks, Kazaa’s parent firm, to install filters to prevent its software from being used for unauthorized sharing. The court there is using the threat of legal liability to require architecture changes. Kim Weatherall has an interesting analysis of the decision from an Australian Professor’s perspective. For a response from a U.S. Professor check out’s Aussie P2P […]

  4. Australian Court on KaZaA – Stop: Napster Time

    An Australian federal court has ruled that the Sharman companies responsible for the filesharing software KaZaA “authorized,” and are therefore liable for, copyright infringement by the people who use the software. Further, the court has ordered Shar…

  5. […] Michael Madison’s views (University of Pittsburgh) – interesting comments comparing US and Australian approaches to legal development. […]

Comments are closed.